Cameron is right on this one and what a load of twaddle above. Right in that if the Press can establish a completely independent commission with enough teeth to punish, then the objective has been achieved, without incurring the costs and baying teeth of (mostly) ignorant MPs, and upholding the concept of free speech (though on that one read the Nightingale Story in the STel and how the MoD and SAS tried to block the story).......

Still though, some legislation may be needed to underpin penalties, such as the closure of a paper for a given period......that though should be minimal and able to be put through the Houses relatively quickly. And Cameron has said that he will revert to the legal route, if it is necessary.....

I suspect there is a lot of political hot air and posturing going on here. Behind scenes the mess will be getting sorted out....

Apparently, DC is also considering an Robbery Complaints Commission.
It works like this.
If you believe you are a victim of robbery, you write to the RCC. The committee (who will be an experienced robber) will be elected from the board of robbers. The board itself will be made up of members nominated by each of the major crime-families.

Only victims themselves will have the right to complain.
In the unlikely event that the RCC finds in your favour, the offending robber (if he has elected to voluntarily subscribe to the RCC) may break into yor house and leave a very small note of apology, but all the other robbers will then be entitled to declare open season on you and your family.

If you are not a rabid right-winger and DM supporter, you can register your dissatisfaction with Cameron the Coward, here:

Cameron is clearly a long way off the mark. Public opinion, the victims of the worst excesses of the press, and the bulk of MPs are in favour of the central Leveson recommendation of a press regulatory body free of influence from editors and proprietors and equally free from the government.

Broadcast media has to report to a regulatory body - OFCOM - so why should papers be reprieved and allowed to retain their self-regulatory status when we have innumberable examples of the press printing any old rubbish they like about people in order to sell papers?

Sectors of the press make money by trading in stories of human misery, freak show articles and salacious gossip, much of it baseless.If they wish to make money by doing so, and there are enough people wanting to read it fine, but at the very least they should be regulated by an independent body with some teeth to allow redress and/or compensation by those harmed by stories that are just made up.

And such a body has to have some kind of statutory rights to give it authority - So it can properly act as an arbiter that individuals can turn to if they feel that the press has acted unethically; A body that can compel papers to prominently print corrections or pay fines where appropriate.

This is not the "free press shackled by parliament", or the "brave press being muzzled by politics", and the press always have the public interest defence to follow important stories relating to the abuse of power, or cover-ups or anything else.Nor does the risible defence that somehow we will forfeit our moral right to criticize human rights abuses and press censorship in other countries.

In my opinion, there should be some element of compulsion, or a sufficiently attractive incentive, to ensure that papers have to register with the regulator - media outlets should be registered with such a body as a condition of doing business. and I suspect that it is this element of any legislation that might prove to be contentious.

We cannot have the spectacle of a Press Regulatory Authority where members are free to withdraw from its authority, like we currently have with the Express Group and the PCC.